Localizing Event-Related Potentials Using Multi-source Minimum Variance Beamformers: A Validation Study
Adaptive and non-adaptive beamformers have become a prominent neuroimaging tool for localizing neural sources of electroencephalographic (EEG) and magnetoencephalographic (MEG) data. In this study, we investigated single-source and multi-source scalar beamformers with respect to their performances in localizing and reconstructing source activity for simulated and real EEG data. We compared a new multi-source search approach (multi-step iterative approach; MIA) to our previous multi-source search approach (single-step iterative approach; SIA) and a single-source search approach (single-step peak approach; SPA). In order to compare performances across these beamformer approaches, we manipulated various simulated source parameters, such as the amount of signal-to-noise ratio (0.1–0.9), inter-source correlations (0.3–0.9), number of simultaneously active sources (2–8), and source locations. Results showed that localization performance followed the order of MIA > SIA > SPA regardless of the number of sources, source correlations, and single-to-noise ratios. In addition, SIA and MIA were significantly better than SPA at localizing four or more sources. Moreover, MIA was better than SIA and SPA at identifying the true source locations when signal characteristics were at their poorest. Source waveform reconstructions were similar between MIA and SIA but were significantly better than that for SPA. A similar trend was also found when applying these beamformer approaches to a real EEG dataset. Based on our findings, we conclude that multi-source beamformers (MIA and SIA) are an improvement over single-source beamformers for localizing EEG. Importantly, our new search method, MIA, had better localization performance, localization precision, and source waveform reconstruction as compared to SIA or SPA. We therefore recommend its use for improved source localization and waveform reconstruction of event-related potentials.
Funding was provided by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and University of British Columbia.
- Herdman AT, Cheyne D (2009) A practical guide for MEG and beamforming. Brain Sign Analysis: Advances in Neuroelectric and Neuromagnetic Methods, pp 99Google Scholar
- Howell DC (2009) Statistical methods for psychology, Nelson EducationGoogle Scholar
- Robinson SE, Vrba J (1999) Functional neuroimaging by synthetic aperture magnetometry (SAM). In: Yoshimoto T, Kotani M, Kuriki S, Karibe H, Nakasato N (eds) Recent advances in biomagnetism. Tohoku University Press, Sendai, pp 302–305Google Scholar
- Sekihara K, Nagarajan SS (2008) Adaptive spatial filters for electromagnetic brain imaging Springer Science & Business Media, NewYorkGoogle Scholar
- Van Veen BD, Buckley KM (1988) Beamforming: a versatile approach to spatial filtering. IEEE Trans Signal Process 5:4–24Google Scholar
- Van Veen BD, van Drongelen W, Yuchtman M, Suzuki A (1997) Localization of brain electrical activity via linearly constrained minimum variance spatial filtering. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 44(9):866–880Google Scholar
- Van Hoey G, Van de Walle R, Vanrumste B, D’Havse M, Lemahieu I, Boon P (1999) Beamforming techniques applied in EEG source analysis. Proc ProRISC99 10:545–549Google Scholar